Skip to main content

About this Show

Key Capitol Hill Hearings

Speeches from policy makers and coverage from around the country.




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel v109






Us 6, U.s. 3, United States 2, Europe 2, Incentivize 1, Budgeting 1, Inco 1, Suny 1, Mcanally 1, The Nation 1, Sarah 1, Mr. Hale 1, Hazel 1, Kristine 1, Dempsey 1, Milton L. 1, Uc 1, Mr. Kendall 1, Landers 1, Carrier Fleet 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Key Capitol Hill Hearings    Speeches from policy makers and  
   coverage from around the country.  

    March 5, 2014
    2:00 - 4:01am EST  

the larger budget submission. last week you heard secretary hazel and chairman dempsey preview some of the key decisions contained within the documents we are releasing today. firmly believing that the key br represents the right strategy to a vin the united states and secure our interest during this historic transition from military. directing that that team define our goals and a fiscally informed manner which enables us to bill the budget that police supports our strategy. the analysis you will hear today the mysteries of the president's budget submission enables the department of defense to meet the strategic interest. this gdr makes clear that sequestration is an and the step will path to the problem of defense. when he and the chairman testified before the senate armed services committee and on
thursday at thought -- house armed services committee. the secretary looks forward to discussing our updated defense strategy and budget as we grapple with tough fiscal and strategic realities. with that i will turn it over to brief the details of the quadrennial. >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for coming. you know that we do that quadrennial defense review every four years and deliver it with the president's budget. i am happy to have the opportunity to doctors of the highlights with you law and take your questions before we also go and talk about the defense part of the budget. before i start i want to take a minute to think the leaders here in the apartment and a staff of 0s t, the joint staff, services, combatant commanders. this was a team effort and the entire department but in a tremendous amount of work. i just wanted thank everyone in
the building who participated with the very collaborative things as a process. we also work closely with the national security council and our counterparts in the agency. very much appreciate all of our work has gone analyze several months. in terms of the main points of the report which i think should be available to you on the apartment website family have three primary themes. the first is to provide an updated defense strategy in the que de our report that its ford division for protecting and advancing u.s. interest and a strategy that would sustain u.s. global leaders. it would talk about how we intend to rebalance the joint force to adjust to this changing strategic and fiscal environment . several of the high points of the rebalancing adjustments the secretary announced last week. i would also like to talk a
little bit about some of the investments we are making in key capability areas that support where we think our joint force need steel. the third main theme in the report is ducking a letter of the apartment itself needs to a rebalance and reform to put additional continued emphasis on being more efficient, effective, and in particular controlling internal cost growth, particularly in the area of compensation while at the same time maintaining our commitment to preserve the health of the all volunteer force. those are the three primary themes in the document. the report will also talk at some length about what we see as the implications or the risks that are posed by prolonged sequestration levels cuts defense strategy and the ability of the department to execute the strategy which is a very important part of that report. i would characterize this updated defense strategy in this overall qd are as an evolution of our strategy.
it is continuing its transitions from the words of the last decade to looking at a future threat and looking at what our joint force needs to be able to read do in the next ten to 20 years. it builds on an inco breaks many of the priorities that were outlined in the defense strategic guidance and 2012. we talk, as you would imagine, but how we see the security environment in some detail. it is fair to say we see this strategic environment we are facing is continuing to be complex. it is rapidly changing. dca continued importance focusing on the asia-pacific region. we see multiple points in the middle east. a range of challenging problems. suny, she it tensions. that is an area of continuing importance in focus for the department. the security department, we talk about how we see developments in the cyber and space domain.
these are vital to our securities that is under considerable challenge by nation states in various places in the world. an important piece of the security environment is how we see the terrorist threat metastasizing. i think it is fair to say that while the direct threat to the homeland is not as strong as it was immediately after the 9/11 attacks, we certainly see al qaeda continuing to morph. it is a major focal point of our strategy which will talk about in a little bit more. we talk in the report about how we see technology changing and influencing the strategic environment. on the one hand it is very much enabling and president's cooperation with allies and partners but prose is a variety of threats from military and particularly the ability to counter anti access. in the updated strategy there are three pieces. let me walk through those
quickly. first of all -- and i want to say up front that these three pillars of the strategy, if you will, are interrelated. they complement each other, or together. they are not stand alone. it is important to think of them in a comprehensive waifs says. the first is to protect the homeland and ensure that we can deter threats in defeat threats if necessary but also we are focused on continuing to be able to provide support to civil authorities when called upon to deal with natural disasters and things of that sort. as a propeller is building security globally which is really looking at our forward presence, building partnership, capacity efforts, milton l. engagements and exercises around the world and the purpose behind building security globally is to deter threats wherever we can as far away from our shores as possible and to work together
with our allies and partners in dealing with common security challenges. the last piece of my strategy is at -- arguably the morganatic pillar of the strategy. we call it projecting power and winning decisively. here we see the ability of the joint force to project power around the world as a signature of our u.s. military, one of our core strengths, is essential to protect that, particularly in environment that we see becoming less permissive where we see threats growing. primarily through talk about the ability to conduct counter-terrorism operations and an airport we would talk about low we would certainly continue to make investments to ensure that we have the ability to conduct direct actions of braces against terrorist groups and they're going to be putting greater emphasis on building partnership a dozen and a to.
more share the burden in terms of dealing with terrorist threats in countries around the world. rebalancing a little bit. in this strategy's and particularly in terms of building security globally we restate and emphasize our commitment to the rebalance to asia pacific, sustaining a focused in the middle east. 305,000 forces in and around the gulf which is indicative of how seriously we take that part of the world. we also will continue to work very closely with our european allies and partners to ensure not only that we have -- that we have focused on providing euro atlantic stability, but also on working with them to deal with common challenges, partnering with european friends to deal with terrorist threats, to deal with near normal threats in places like north africa. underpinning across all three pillars of this strategy is a
real focus on innovation and adaptability. i think it is important to say that we are not trying to say that we can close the gap in an era of fiscal constraint solely through innovation, but we think it is important in a fiscally obscure environment to put a renewed focus on trying to be as creative and forward thinking as we can in an apartment. for example, we are looking -- we spend a lot of time in the qd r looking at things like how we can provide for a presence in new ways to get more bang for our buck. if we are looking at joint training ranges at, perhaps, the plane elements of our carriers try groups in different ways than we have in the past to try and get more bang from the buck, we are also trying to work with particularly close allies like the brits to harmonize how we do security cooperation activities to make sure that we are
maximizing effort and pursuing complementary objectives and activities so that we are all getting as much possible out of our more scarce defense resources. at the president's budget level we believe we can execute this defense strategy with increased risk in some areas, continue at this budget level and with this updated defense strategy to defeat an adversary and denied the objectives of the second anniversary as well as being able to do the other elements. frankly, deconstruct tends to get boil down to that to bumper sticker, and i think it is important that we try to articulate that we see a much broader range of activities that the joint force is to be capable of doing in any given time. it is not just denying, not just a feeding an adversary in denying the objectives. it is protecting the homeland,
deterring and sharing in multiple regions in peacetime. it is being able to conduct operations and then the defeat and denied. i just want to take a moment to sort of foot stomp on a comprehensive construct. again, i think you all are familiar with the major announcements that the secretary made last week in terms of sort of how we are rebalancing the force on a service by service basis. i will say briefly that in addition to the rebalancing that we are doing in the specific services, we are trying to protect key investments and capability areas, like cyber, space, continuing to grow special operations to almost 70,000 forces in, but continuing investments in missile defense and other important areas in the
nuclear triad compete to buy pieces of our force that we think are essential. but another sort of -- before i come briefly to the implications of the sequestration part of the strategy and want to say that important parts of our vision going toward is the need to rebalance the apartments. we have asked congress for authority. we are continuing to work on acquisition reform. we are looking at how we can consolidate our infrastructure in europe and inefficient way. we are, of course, looking in a series of proposals to try to slow the growth of our compensation packages because we think that part of what we have to responsibly do us to maintain a balanced force will talk about that in some detail. i know that they will also speak to that in just a moment. let me close by saying, the
final piece of the report talks and some length about the implications of returning to sequester level cuts for the joint board. and while we firmly believe that the president's budget level, we can execute this strategy, is fair to say that we believe that if we return to sequester level cuts in 16 we will be facing a significantly higher level of risk. the secretary has characterize that as posing unacceptable risk to our ability to provide national security and to do our part in providing national security for the nation. and in particular, where we see those risk manifesting we obviously would be seeing the force get even smaller than the reductions that the secretary outlined last week democrats to modernizations would go even deeper which we think would put at risk our ability to keep pace with technologically advanced adversaries. readiness would be a serious
problem, has been a serious challenge over the last couple of years. we would not be able to recover readiness levels that we need which would never to have netted to have negatively impact not only our ability to be absent present in the world but also to be able to respond promptly to a crisis. so i think our view is that the combined effects to capacity to my capability, and readiness that we would experience under prolonged sequestration would significantly raise their risk of our ability to execute this defense strategy which we think is the right one for what our nation needs going forward. that is why the president has asked for about $150 million more than a sequester level cap. we believe the strategy we have outlined is the right one for us given what we need to do and given our responsibilities as a global leader. i will close there and turn over the podium to mr. hale and look
forward to your questions at the end. >> good afternoon. our job is to give you an overview of the fiscal 15 budget rule. you heard then beach. we are kind of the post-game show. we will give you some commentary . the joint staff. an introductory. just to piggyback, this was a very concentrated effort on the part of the department to work through the elementary view and inform the president's budget which we will talk about for the next few minutes. a collaborative effort. is this strategy, resources, and they inform the strategy. okay. next slide. you heard this strategy. i will not spend time on this other than i spend probably a
couple dozen budget meetings and almost every one of them has strategic discussion. strategy did inform this budget. let me get more comfortable, the dollars, this goes back to 2001. projected 15 through 19 under a plan. large growth after 9/11 compete in 2010, comedown, focused on fiscal 15 and focus on the top bar. there is a place holder of $79 billion. there is no substantive detail behind it and tell the conditions allow the president to make an enduring decision in afghanistan. we cannot provide a budget. once that happens we will provide a formal budget amendment. zoan not going to say any more about that in the rest of this briefing. focus on the dark blue bar. asking for for under 96 billion in budget.
grows sharply between 15 and 16 and gradually after words, about 3 percent growth per year. next slide to let me put this in context. the top line shows last year's plan for these years. we think that is relevant because in our view is fully funded defense strategy. the red line at the bottom is a sequester level cuts, the caps that adjusted this is what we are submitting. focus on fiscal 15. that is consistent with the caps, recurrent caps our highest priority. it is $45 billion less than we thought we needed last year to fully fund the strategy. you will hear arrest talking about more risks and problems of a near-term readiness.
the green line is above of the red one. we are budgeting at levels higher than a sequester caps, asking for 535 billion in budget authority. a total, we are above the cap by 115 billion. i am going to focus. what are we trying to accomplish the main thing is balance, trying to balance readiness, technological capability, size, capacity, capability. throughout we will be talking about things we do not particularly want to do but have to in order to achieve a balanced budget and the number of other themes institutionally from readiness problems that you will u.s.a. more about as we go along. let me turn to key initiatives. if you ask the public for half a jillion dollars you owe it to them to do everything that's a
can to squeeze out deficiencies. efficiencies are short and relief for getting rid of lower priority programs, which is so we are doing. the total inefficiencies, 20 percent cut in had quarter operating budget. you have heard about that before. it's about 5 billion, not a lot of money, but important symbolically and in practical terms. the money comes in things like making judicious cuts in contract funding by eliminating lower priority contracts, restructuring civilian workforce, health care savings other than the compensation related ones which we will talk about and a few minutes, we need another round. we have at least 25 percent unneeded infrastructure in his department. if we cannot get congress to allow us to close it we're simply going to waste taxpayer money and won't have that money to invest in other things.
so efficiencies where the first things we looked at and an important part of our efforts. need to slow the growth in military compensation. i will ask the general if he will brief this slide. >> one of the things that became obvious was the need to look at our total military paying compensation package which goes back to what we have said which is we have to keep a balance. at any budget level we know that they're coming down, and we are looking at trying to balance of the force cost in terms of people against the capability, capacity, and readiness of that force. as the force comes down in size we took a look at the compensation of those other coming in the force, serving today, and those who have served with the senate-passed. we were guided by the principles of we were not looking at getting paid the slowing the growth of paying allowances and want to make sure we are able to recruit and retain the best all volunteer professional force in the world. we worked hard with the joint
chiefs of staff to look at proposing a package of major initiatives that uc on the slide very briefly we are requesting a 1 percent pay raise. we will slow the growth the basic allowance for housing until we reach about 5% of the pocket for the members over three year timeframe and eliminate renters' insurance from the computation which will bring about 6 percent, reduce the commissary subsidy. they are not asking are telling them to close. this is a reducing the appropriated funds subsidy to have them become more efficient than they already are and operate more like a business. we are going to remove the proposal that was put in it and have taken a clean look at this with health affairs leading the discussion and submit a single, simplified plan with a series of fees to incentivize at all in the best care, but the most
inexpensive care. we will also resubmitted the proposals for those who are not already and, 65 and elders, and the pharmacy proposals for co-payments from last year which represents our package for the president's budget in 2015. >> if top -- of congress tuesday -- chooses to turn down these it will create hellhole and our fiscal 15 budget and that $30 billion all. next slide. >> we have a substantial but targeted and streamlined modernization package, some of which addresses the points that kristine made. there are high priority programs . several activities. not on here, probably should not have been. in a number of cases like the joint strike fighter and others we are still going forward with the program.
sometimes it grows, but less than anticipated losses because of affordability. in a few cases we have made specific cutbacks. for example we accepted the army recommendation to terminate the ground combat vehicle, too heavy for the kind of wars the army invasions' fighting. they will invest in technology and within this year up to have another plan for modernizing ground and combat vehicles. a substantial but streamlined and targeted modernization program. next slide. >> we also need to gradually restore their readiness of this force. >> i said before you let 11 months ago and we had just been sequestered. that took about 37 billion from our budget. that on top of the initial round of budget control lax, we found ourselves hitting the brakes on our readiness recovery from over a decade. in fact, at 513 shortfalls will
take us awhile to recover from and in some cases we don't know the effects of. the president's budget for a 515 and we are submitting, the key phrases it puts the joint force back on a footing to get back to full spectrum readiness. there is growth rate, funding readiness. an increase. you see some of the examples across services which i am sure they will discuss later and grows our cyber mission force and finds readiness as well. >> next slide. >> even after it efficiencies, slowing the growth in compensation and targeted modernization we have to get smaller. if we don't we will not have funds to adequately provide for training and maintenance which shows you our reductions during the and a 14 and our goals without sequester in the absence of sequester. about a 6% overall growth in active duty, reduction in
active-duty forces. proportionately smaller, but a reduction in guard then forces in the 5% reduction in civilian full-time equivalents. and with those come force structure cuts in the absence of sequestration. the air force will cover almost 300 aircraft -- aircraft. a venerable platform. but it is getting old. it is a single mission aircraft. there are other planes that missions can accomplish the task. so reluctantly and because of affordability also what they change from last year, retire our shrink wrapped and global 30 the operating cost on a global $0.30, down. there is always a close call. now it comes down in favor. we will keep him in gradually retire the youtube.
i will not go through these others. i cannot go through them with you. if you want to come back and ask us questions. next slide. i want to address a particular aspect of this budget which is the service calls verses -- i describe this to you in connection with the army acted. at the end of 14 we expect 510,000. our goal is to draw them down to about 440-4 under and 50,000 by fiscal year 2009 in the absence of sequestration. we talk about risks. we are thinking about foreign and 40-4 under and 50. sequestration is prolonged and continues we will have to draw the army down. the point of want to make, that is in the 5-year plan that we are submitting to congress. you might say, wait a minute. the budget above the sequester cap level.
why is the army has a question levels. the answer is, we don't know what the army will do. sequestration is a law, so we cannot be sure where we will end up if. takes time to plan for major force changes. and so we have put this plan in our 5-year plan for major items that the sequester level. if congress gives us an indication they will budget, we will and the army drawdown and leave them at 440-450. let me address it with regard to carriers. it will go back up to 11. we would like to stay at that level. with sequester we will have to go back by decommissioning. our 5-year plan has tin in there because we have to plan for a major force that. if congress indicates that they will budget we will not
decommissioned a george washington lead the carrier fleet at 11. next slide this would normally be the wrapup. there are special features to this budget. some fairly unusual times, and i want to address two of them. the first is the opportunity of growth and security focused on the of the red portion of this chart and in fiscal 15 there is government wide initiative called of gsie to at discretionary funding fully offset by cuts in mandatory spending and increases in taxes associated with closing tax loopholes. for the apartment of justice that would amount to a $26 billion increase in our budget. again, the 496 as a stand-alone budget which is what we describe to you. that is what will be in our detailed budget documents, but the president's budget will ask
for those 26 billion in additional funding. let me tell you what is in that. next slide. about 40% of who would go for direct readiness assessments so that they can train more. about 40 percent of it would go for modernization improvements. to spend more on helicopters in the army for the black hawk and a patchy. we would buy more aircraft in the navy, to more f35 and a number of items that are there. the final 10 percent goes for installation, support increases, sustainment, and also a military construction, both of which have been cut quite a bit in recent years. it is our judgment that we do not have -- we have shortfalls and training and maintenance which lead to some readiness risk, near-term risk has characterized them. if we were to get this added
appropriation in was significantly mitigate those risks. next slide, the last special feature is what happens if we go to sequestration level budgets and focus on the red part of the slide, i have been talking to you about the vast green line. in order to realize the request congress is going to have to change the camps -- along and praise that discretionary caps. what if they don't? what happens to our forces? that me give you an idea in the next slide. we would see reduced capability in a variety of raise. cuts would be below us preach sequester roles. marine corps instead of staying at 182-175, smaller reserve and the army, ten aircraft carriers and nine wings instead of the 11 carriers and ten wings that we would prefer to keep. same proposals and military
compensation in terms of growth, although probably more important further force cuts beyond what i have already described. retiring in the global fleet, fewer predators' and reapers, less recovery and readiness. the operation and maintenance budget is important, but there is at 3 percent per year -- less than 2% at sequester level budget which will hamper the recovery and readiness. less growth and procurement in a variety of ways. overall what the secretary has said is that the prolonged sequestration was significantly increase their risk significantly increasing the chances we could not carry out the strategy. as the secretary said in his speech, if we accept full on sequestration we are gambling that our military will not have to engage in simultaneous military contingencies. next slide. let me summarize what the
dollars and the words of secretary hazel to describe there risks in this budget, the budget for 96 is at camp levels. disco 15 goes beyond the years. near-term gaps in training and maintenance cannot post risc readiness, the a pitch and it digress and security initiative would mitigate longer-term risks as well, especially with regard to simultaneous contingencies and much higher risks if we end up going to prolonged sequestration. my last slide is it you cancel you can go to our website and they're is a lot of mind numbing detail on. what that i will stop. i believe that you will join us and we will try to join the take questions. >> thank you. >> before you ask her question, why keep the briefings on
schedule. people are going to look, read through it and wondered, the template. obviously you couldn't -- could not have predicted that. to what extent to they provide a framework. and will that force any kind of real look or strategy over the next month or two? >> what i would say is this is a strategy that presents a broad framework. you want a strategy that has the flexibility to address the real world challenges. this strategy, particularly, that is where we talk about partner in with our european allies, working with nato to focus on euro atlantic stability
to be able to address a range of common threats them all the terrorism which probably we were very focused on and now to deal with a different kind of threat that we are seeing in europe itself. and then, of course, the third piece of the strategy eligibility to project power, we feel like under that strategic approach we have the kind of capabilities we would need to be able to provide a range of military options. i would argue this strategy is flexible enough to address the kinds of challenges we are seeing. i think in terms of the situation right now we will focus primarily on looking at partner with our allies and complementing the diplomatic and economic options that the administration is working on. >> the 420 figured, you have seen at drumbeat of media coverage saying that would bring
the united states of the lowest level since 1940. is that a relevant metric? >> it is basically strategically meaningless. me to let the size of the army along with the rest of the joint force against the press that we faced. maybe it provides some perspective. from a strategy standpoint. >> the narratives of the public saying that this will get defense based upon the -- >> half a trillion dollars on the fence. as bob gates used to say to me, it's something for half a billion, and adding that he is right. we should be able to provide a reasonable level of defense command at think that we can, though will be more risks. >> thank you. foreign policy. your budget overview refers to a reduction in select capacity and
at the same time referring to a budget increase for special operations flexible have selected the ." they're going from 60,000 to 69,700. definitely narrowing. between 14 and 15 the budget grows. there is considerable growth. now will have to look at the overview. >> their readiness. >> in terms of their readiness, they have also been heard but will gradually recover. the same recovery path. >> they qb our question. as we talk to mark the homeland offense in nation that it was lowered.
what i the homeland defense france kept hog be tech to the diaz. is this another carrier in asia? what is the presence? >> happy to talk about all of those buried in terms of the threats to their homeland, we see a range. we are concerned about ballistic missile threats. cashews like north korea because of the importance of a national missile defense system. while i think we would take the position that the defense from terrorists to the homeland have declined, direct threats, there are certainly groups out there with the intent and desired a strike the homeland like a que ap, and we also have the potential for natural disasters or industrial events, things of that nature. as other types of things that we are talking about.
so, for example, has set a descending and the carrier's record as one large entity, perhaps letting off the surface action group to go and do exercises are building partnership capacity activity, potentially even in a different alar under different combat commander, and in the real world we have sometimes pursued those types of deployments. they have not been, as our standard operating procedure, and we are exploring whether it -- whether there is the potential to do that but. those are a couple of examples. i'm. >> used up a little bit above the average into the air for the security initiative, and i realize this is a one-year funding. some of the procurement and readiness, the funding, would it
require anything additional? >> there is not allowed here. we are increasing specific procurements. readiness would get better quicker, but we are already finding enough to sustain that at the president's budget level. miguel above the camps. i think that with the 26 billion we would be better off and readiness and the load the patter of. adult think it would interfere at all, and fact it would support our program in the out years. >> a lot of your critics have said if he tried more focused sequestration, an enormous amount can be cut without endangering the strategy. given your discussion today and the sequestration, how do you answer those critics? >> let's just say we did not cry wolf. we shut down for three months,
12 combat for crack -- aircraft squadrons and stop them from flying. it will take as a year or more. we stopped army units from going through the combat training centers. that is a culminating training even that gives them ready for continuous operations. we did bad things. we've furloughs' 650,000 people, delayed work, number of other adverse effects not to mention seriously damage -- damaging the round. i don't think we quite wolf. it still is going to damage or reduce the ability to grow military capability in ways that end to risk. we have already said there are near-term risks that will is significantly worse under sequestration.
>> last week he spoke of the programs. i there any other industrial base sectors. >> i have friends here, frank kindle. i will not be able to give you other specific examples. i suspect that there are. we are not trying to the company's bit capabilities. >> not of the top of my head. >> a lot of this is the type of environment that mr. kendall can provide information on. >> the question on military compensation, if congress rejected the package would create a $2 billion. is that just for this portion? >> no, that is everything. assuming they went back to hire pay raises, turned down the
commissary cutbacks and the try care. try care stars the consolidation in fiscal 15 because we need a year to do all the contacting changes. it does not play -- the consolidation does not play in. >> have you h'm made changes? the department's, have you gotten any indication that they may be changing? >> i don't want to try to get inside their heads. i think that many on the hell realize that we need a balanced package. we don't particularly want to do this. if we are going to live with these caps and don't want sarah go to further forced cuts or degradation and readiness we have to do a variety of other things, smaller, slower growth. there is realization of that,
but landers and that it is tough. and need to let them speak for themselves. >> is no longer have your are planning and organizing for the armed forces to perform. >> i certainly don't want believe you with that impression though it we think inside the department is much broader -- that is protecting the homeland.
that is what i was trying to say at the president's budget level our ability, we continue to have the ability to do that to wars, that a feed in adversary and denied the objectives of the second. i hope that clarifies. >> that sounds to me like we don't have the ability to us take on to adversaries if there were two wars. mcanally defeat one and denied the other. >> that is a great question. that if he denied formulation was part of our defense strategic guidance. we were trying to get that was delineating between -- we look at the range of scenarios. there may be some potential conflicts where we would be looking and regime change. end of the where -- we in some departments and to call the steps of scenarios defeat
scenarios. there are other situations where we may not necessarily be looking at defeating a regime, but we would be looking at a full-scale combined arms major combat operation to deny the objectives and adversary might have where we may well back whenever the aggression is significantly degrade the military capabilities of an adversary but not take down the regime. that is believed that is trying to articulate. both of those types of operations and a substantial full-scale join operations cat's-paw. >> operational, and perhaps some from military forces as well as military assistance through latin american conference. >> sir, at the president's budget level we are again remaining committed to building
security, a partnership capacity with countries like mexico. and we certainly would envision north, and south, continuing to work with countries in the southern hemisphere. our focus in the western hemisphere is really working with countries that want to work with us to go after transnational criminal organizations and to go after institution building. that is a lot of our focus in that part of the world. if we were to experience prolonged sequestration we would be concerned about our ability to do all that on the scale that we do today. i was going to the question that i think was posed earlier about crying wolf. on the international side, the impact that we added 13 we did in some cases cancel exercises are scaledown exercises. we revisit some of the deployments that we had planned to do and dad did take some of those of the board as a result of sequestration and 13. there are real and pacs to that kind of activity.
>> i wanted to ask about one of the priorities that has been identified. in the scenarios, how are you revisiting are reconsidering? >> all tickets shot at it. in terms of forces, not think that we are reconsidering. we are going for with a variety of issues some discussions with singapore. getting the marines, i think that these are not primarily financial decisions. we have a fairly robust shipbuilding program averaging about nine per year which is a long-term contribution. i think the budget definitely supports the rebalance and we are not reconsidering it. >> i would agree. as we went through the program
budget review process we will the -- we looked at investment choices through the lens of our strategy and the rebalance of asia-pacific is a big part of that. we projected investments to go after capability. our affiliate myself of mr. hill's comments. >> have a question about cyber funding. does that include any augmentation about the services themselves, or is that number going towards cyber management? >> it is fair to say that there is no set of program elements that lead to this number. maybe there need to be, but there are at the moment. we were to come up with this number, and it includes this service contributions. cyber operations, defense, an offense, but elsewhere as well. another part of it is our overall information assurance,
public key infrastructure, some r&d activities, dark by, and others as well. we have tried to capture it all. i would say that there is a gray area